Question for Republicans re: Iowa Exit Polls

[sugarkang]

Iowa Exit Polls

So, what do you think should be done about the libertarian problem? I have very few Republican friends IRL, so I'd like your thoughts. Absorb them in the party? Purge the pesky freedom lovers? Ignore?

Paul is strong with:
1. under age 40 (Romney takes senior citizens)
2. under $100K incomes (Romney takes $100K+)
3. first time caucus goers
4. independents (43%)
5. moderate/liberal (40%)

Also noteworthy is people citing Paul's best quality as being a "true conservative." Do you think this is relevant to Erick Erickson's observation?

"As you wake up this morning, the tea party has failed because it has surrendered itself into the hands of Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich — all of whom would use government to suit allegedly conservative ends, which is not conservative in and of itself."

[Sulla the Dictator]

They're already members of the party. Libertarians aren't "moderates", they're libertine economic rightists. Circumstances determine which way they flip, though usually its GOP.

No libertarian who votes for Obama this time is the real deal, IMO.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

They're already members of the party. Libertarians aren't "moderates", they're libertine economic rightists. Circumstances determine which way they flip, though usually its GOP.

No libertarian who votes for Obama this time is the real deal, IMO.

Ouch. Harsh words. I'm a shitty libertarian, non-ideologue. What can I say?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Iowa Exit Polls

So, what do you think should be done about the libertarian problem? I have very few Republican friends IRL, so I'd like your thoughts. Absorb them in the party? Purge the pesky freedom lovers? Ignore?

Paul is strong with:
1. under age 40 (Romney takes senior citizens)
2. under $100K incomes (Romney takes $100K+)
3. first time caucus goers
4. independents (43%)
5. moderate/liberal (40%)

Also noteworthy is people citing Paul's best quality as being a "true conservative." Do you think this is relevant to Erick Erickson's observation?

I just think this whole label thing is craaaazy! People think lots of different things and most people don't have an absolutely coherent belief system. They lean and they vote.

In the case of Obama, I don't see how anyone who leans libertarian could vote for him, as Sulla says. If they do, they don't understand what libertarian means. Their best hope would be to vote for someone who at least pays lip service to the notion of small government, which Obama decidedly doesn't.
In the case of modern government, lip service may be our best hope...that and an intransigent legislature.

As for Erickson's comments...I guess he's disappointed but gee whiz! none of the teaparty candidates was up to the task. This wasn't about what Iowan voters want except they saw that Perry/Bacmann didn't have the right stuff. Was he really surprised by this? What is important is that the legislature be occupied with folks who stand behind small government principles. They count a whole hell of a lot.

And as for Paul...he's an important voice but not presidential.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

In the case of Obama, I don't see how anyone who leans libertarian could vote for him, as Sulla says. If they do, they don't understand what libertarian means.

You're saying I don't know what libertarian means? This seems somewhat related and could be of interest.

[sugarkang]

Also related:

Originally Posted by sugarkang

I don't think RP runs as a third party. Andrew Sullivan had a mini piece a while back on how that would destroy Rand Paul's political future. I think the Republican Establishment understands that libertarianism is their party's future. If that weren't the case, Judge Napalitano wouldn't have a show. The average age of registered Republicans is really old. More freedom or more latinos. Your move Republicans.

This piece.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

You're saying I don't know what libertarian means? This seems somewhat related and could be of interest.

OK, here's what I said: (I feel this compulsion lately to set the record straight)

I don't see how anyone who leans libertarian could vote for him, as Sulla says. If they do, they don't understand what libertarian means

So here I am saying that if one has libertarian values and doesn't have some other agenda like say, feeling compelled to vote for Obama because one feels sorry for him or one doesn't have respect for the election process or (as in your case) it doesn't matter who you vote for, Obama's going to win your electors, so you want to later say you voted for him and prove you're not a racist...

then because of Obama's big daddy government, I'm here for you and I'm going to make things better for the middle class through government largess, you just couldn't vote for him. But you could still understand what libertarian means.

Nice article.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

So here I am saying that if one has libertarian values and doesn't have some other agenda like say, feeling compelled to vote for Obama because one feels sorry for him or one doesn't have respect for the election process or (as in your case) it doesn't matter who you vote for, Obama's going to win your electors, so you want to later say you voted for him and prove you're not a racist...

Hah. Incidentally, this will probably be the last time I vote for a Democrat.

then because of Obama's big daddy government, I'm here for you and I'm going to make things better for the middle class through government largess, you just couldn't vote for him. But you could still understand what libertarian means.

Yeah, but this is related to the other thread where Sulla and I discussed my supposed cognitive dissonance. I'd vote for Huntsman, but he isn't going to make it. My biggest issue is Big Gov. So, if all the other candidates are Big Gov, then I have to vote for the guy who will, on balance, do things right. Obama's pretty good on foreign policy, even if he just destroyed all of our civil liberties to meet those objectives.